The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Angrboda]

[Bucky Ball]

[GrandizerII]

[Angrboda]

Theists seem to overlook the fact that the question of why something rather than nothing can apply to their god as well. Imagine there is no universe, there is only a god. Why is there a god rather than nothing?

Can you answer that question, Xavier?

[polymath257]

[Bucky Ball]

Theists seem to overlook the fact that the question of why something rather than nothing can apply to their god as well.  Imagine there is no universe, there is only a god.  Why is there a god rather than nothing?  

Can you answer that question, Xavier?

I apologize for being "ad nauseam" repetitive on this point, (but no one ever answered it), and in fact on another forum, one of the most militant theists there at the time, 
said in reply to it ... "oh" (just "oh" and nothing more) ... as he saw there is no answer for this : if a god (timelessly/eternally) alone "exists" it can have no descriptors or attributes as they are generally "applied" to the god. In fact even the term "exists" is one of those properties/descriptors, which are ALL subsets of Reality. And the question remains, ... "where did Reality come from, IN WHICH the gods "exist'. 

Angrboda's excellent point above is just another way of making this point. Why is there there a god, rather than nothing ? 
The notions of most theist deities are very complex, and the gods are not "simple", and are described by theists as having all sorts of attributes.
Why would it have to be "good", especially considering what is observed in this universe ?

[Nishant Xavier]

Nishant said: "For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1."

Polymath said: "Prove  this."

Every being Bn that is temporal begins to exist at some point in the timeline. Therefore, it depends on a prior being Bn-1 that already existed at a prior point in the timeline. And this being Bn-1, if itself temporal, depends on a prior being, Bn-2. And so on and so forth, until the beginning of time. Since there is no B0, the Final Being, the First Being, B1, is non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal.

Btw, while I respect St. Thomas, and Dr. Craig, the Argument from Contingency, to the best of my knowledge, has never been formulated mathematically before. It's an absolutely solid argument, and many have become Theists because of it. I think even more will as the mathematical formulation of the argument gets out. That some Atheists may not believe is true, yet the conclusion is certain: An Eternal First Being exists, non-Temporal, responsible for subsequent Beings B2 to Bn beginning to exist in the Universe.

As for other issues, yes, Dr. Craig, a Professional Philosopher, has written extensively on some of the absurdities the idea that a successive addition forming an actual infinite would lead to, and I agree with him. It appears even you do on that particular point.

If so, consider this syllogism:

1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition (which you said you agree with above)
2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

You are trying to deny the conclusion, while saying you admit the premise.

Your words: "NOBODY assumes that an infinite can be obtained by 'successive addition' from a finite amount." 

Now, as to your claim "time was always infinite in the past": what you are really saying is 3 above. Yet, you agree with 1.

Do you then disagree with 2? If so, you need to establish it. The premise is at least more evident than its denial.

If the universe is roughly 15 Billion years old, give or take, that is an independent confirmation it is not actually infinite.

Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past. 

You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.

All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity.

Regards,
Xavier.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one has ever believed in gods because of the argument from contingency. You don't, just as our very first and easiest example - as you've already made crystal clear on the boards.

[Angrboda]

2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.

This is where you screw up every time. If there is an infinite series of past events, it wasn't formed by successive addition. That's not how infinite series are formed.

[Nishant Xavier]

Anthony Flew became a Deistic Theist after many years of discussions and debates, including with Dr. William Lane Craig, God Bless him for it.

Anthony Flew, seemingly at the very door of Christianity and Salvation also said: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” Amen. Well said. And yet we do not know if he made the final leap of faith before the end of his life; I hope for his sake that he did, so that he could now be in Heaven, or at least in Purgatory, and destined for Heaven in its own due time.

But all this goes to show, evidence does matter, arguments do matter, and they help people, in due time, who want to know the Truth, come to be saved. I agree with Dr. Craig's approach on the subject generally, which is also very Augustino-Thomistic, and places Logic and Reason in its proper place.